AnonymousNovember 25, 2016 at 9:13 AM
Let me summarize:
1. A subversion of moral authority has occurred from within the Catholic Church led by Archbishop Hon. They have neither addressed grave moral issues nor supported the moral authority of the Archbishop of Agana. This shows Hon's obvious moral depravity and bias.
2. The toxic environment has been fueled by Mother Dawn Marie's own desire to seek public attention and provide her rendition of the truth in regards to the seminary. The alleged "request to lie" by Archbishop Apuron has never been substantiated.
3. The email interchange between Archbishop Anthony Apuron and Mother Stella Maris leaves no doubt that the intention of the Carmelite nuns was to pay off the debt that was incurred in the acquisition of the property for the Redemptoris Mater Seminary.
4. The Redemptoris Mater Seminary has been the only archdiocesan seminary in Guam and its relationship with the Neocatechumenal Way has been public. Therefore Mother Stella Maris most certainly knew it! So who is not telling the truth here?
5. There was no truth to the accusations and threats by various organizations and individuals that the property was “given away” to the Neocatechumenal Way by Archbishop Apuron and alienated from the Archdiocese of Agana. This threat must be rejected. The Deed Restriction was about the right to use the property and not about owning the property.
6. The property was never alienated, the authority of the archbishop has never been challenged and the new Archbishop Coadjutor, with a simple stroke of his pen, demonstrated the toxic nature of this gigantic mountain of lies.
1. A subversion of moral authority has occurred from within the Catholic Church led by Archbishop Hon. They have neither addressed grave moral issues nor supported the moral authority of the Archbishop of Agana. This shows Hon's obvious moral depravity and bias.
2. The toxic environment has been fueled by Mother Dawn Marie's own desire to seek public attention and provide her rendition of the truth in regards to the seminary. The alleged "request to lie" by Archbishop Apuron has never been substantiated.
3. The email interchange between Archbishop Anthony Apuron and Mother Stella Maris leaves no doubt that the intention of the Carmelite nuns was to pay off the debt that was incurred in the acquisition of the property for the Redemptoris Mater Seminary.
4. The Redemptoris Mater Seminary has been the only archdiocesan seminary in Guam and its relationship with the Neocatechumenal Way has been public. Therefore Mother Stella Maris most certainly knew it! So who is not telling the truth here?
5. There was no truth to the accusations and threats by various organizations and individuals that the property was “given away” to the Neocatechumenal Way by Archbishop Apuron and alienated from the Archdiocese of Agana. This threat must be rejected. The Deed Restriction was about the right to use the property and not about owning the property.
6. The property was never alienated, the authority of the archbishop has never been challenged and the new Archbishop Coadjutor, with a simple stroke of his pen, demonstrated the toxic nature of this gigantic mountain of lies.
Dear Anon at 9:13--
ReplyDeleteTwo things: 1. If there was no question about the ownership or control over the property or the seminary, then why (as reported in PDN) is AB Byrnes filing documents in court to prevent any claims otherwise? and 2. How many Mother Stella Maris are there at that convent? You and Eusebio keep saying she is deceased, but now I'm hearing that she is alive?
As someone said previously...."so confusing".
Dear Anonymous at 3:09 pm,
DeleteBecause he was misled by Archbishop Hon. Hon has been pressuring him to sign those papers before he arrive. However, I am not worried. When he arrives and settles down, he will listen to both sides just as he said.
You have been hearing rumors.
You guys really don't give people enough credit. Good thing Archbishop Byrnes is not Neo or I would have believed you that he could be easily persuaded.
DeleteSo, Diana, you believe Archbishop Hon strong armed AB Byrnes into filing? Probably just wants to get a move on to Rome. Dirty deal. What can be done now? They say Bishop Byrnes outranks Archbishop Anthony.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:35 pm,
DeleteHon manipulated Archbishop Byrnes. Do not worry. I did not say what the good news was. Even Archbishop Hon is unaware of it just like he was unaware of who the new bishop was until the media announced his name. ☺
Dear Diana,
DeleteIf Hon manipulated Byrnes into doing all that he has done already, including filing some papers in court, then I'm sorry to say I don't have much confidence in him. In his interview he said he will listen to both sides, and yet he did all this w/o even stepping foot on the island.
You keep encouraging us not to worry, but even your explanations are weak at best.
Dear Diana at 4:43 PM--
DeleteHow is it you know what is going on with our Church when our own Aux ArchBishop Hon does not? Somehow, that is just not right.
Dear Anonymous at 5:11 pm,
DeletePlace your trust in God. Do not be discouraged.
4:43 Hon is not an Auxiliary Archbishop. Really uninformed.
DeleteAnon @ 4:35 PM I don't know about Byrnes "outranking" Brother Tony. All I know is what I read and hear that (1) Brother Tony is allowed to keep his title but he was stripped of his authority by the Pope (2) Archbishop Hon had the authority from the Pope until 10/31 and (3) Byrnes was given special faculties and ALL authority to act on behalf of the Archdiocese which he has done.
DeleteIf having the authority to make changes like he did to RMS I guess Byrnes "outranks" Brother Tony.
I just don't understand why Diana didn't tell us about the lawsuit that Byrnes filed against RMS. I had to hear it from KUAM. It's like she is hiding things from us.
Dear Anonymous at 6:06 pm,
DeleteThose documents were filed on the same day the deed restriction was rescinded. It is not a lawsuit. Archbishop Byrnes was misled into believing that the NCW had ownership and control of RMS. The documents he filed in court is assurance that he the Archbishop is in control and owns RMS. That was on November 18th. A lot has happened since then. Archbishop Byrnes will arrive on Guam on Monday. He will know the truth.
Diana @ 10:30 PM Anon @ 6:06 got the terms wrong. Your right. Its not a lawsuit. Its a Complaint against RMS/RMHF and BDTI. But why didn't you tell us about it? I thought your suppose to tell us what's happening.
DeleteYou also say AB Byrnes was misled. Don't you think Byrnes would get a second opinion about what Hon was telling him? Don't you think Byrnes would have the Detroit lawyers look over all the docs to make sure that his first acts were legit? Byrnes comes from a big city and doesn't think like we islanders who swallowed everything AB Apuron said for years.
I think we were misled by Apuron into believing that RMS was forming diocesan priests like Fr. Paul or Fr. Richard or Fr. Adrian (BEFORE he became a Neo). It was only after seeing the docs in the jungle that we saw the priests were formed to follow the NCW. That's why Apuron had to open the JP2 Seminary for men like Junee who didn't want to join the NCW.
BTW: If as you say the archbishop is in control and owns RMS theres really no problem about what Byrnes did by filing the complaint right?
Dear Anonymous at 6:58 am,
DeleteI got my dates wrong. Archbishop Byrnes signed the papers on November 14th. The complaint was signed by Archbishop Hon for Byrnes on November 18th, which was 4 days later. It was also written by Hon rather than by Byrnes. I do not think Archbishop Byrnes is aware of this.
You were misinformed and misled by the jungle. As I have said so many times, Archbishop Byrnes would not be able to disband the two boards if RMS or the NCW was in control. The fact that he was able to do that already showed that we were right all along. The Archbishop of Agana had always been in control, and the property had always been under the Archdiocese of Agana. There was never any statutes of limitation.
Have you not noticed that Tim Rohr never published any proof of a statutes of limitation? He also never published the letter of the donor saying they never heard of RMS or even the Archbishop's letter for that matter. However, Dr. Eusebio published the correspondence of Archbishop Apuron and the donor. Tim fooled you without even showing you any documents.
Diana,
DeleteAs you say--we need to wait for Arch Byrnes to arrive to sort all this out. But I have a feeling that no matter what he says, one side will not accept it.
Sadly, it will be a long time before the Catholics on Guam sees peace. God help us all!
Diana Tim Rohr DID publish the proof of the statute of limitation on the Declaration of Deed Restriction. He put a link to the document recorded at the Department of Land Management Instrument Number 829333 with the recording date of November 22, 2011. The terms in the Declaration would become permanent in 5 years. That's why it was important for AB Byrnes to act by November 21, 2016 or the Yona property would FOREVER be in the control of the RMS. And not even the Archbishop of Agana could get control back.
DeleteI'm not sure which of AB Apuron's many letters you're talking about. But Tim Rohr did post pix of the December 2014 and January 2015 letters from AB Apuron AND the donor's representative February 2015 letter that Mother Dawn said had been sent to Rome (and AB Hon said he saw). Tim Rohr didn't post any of the pix that showed the connections to the Carmelites out of respect for their wishes.
You're right that Dr. Eusebio published the December 2002-January 2003 letters between AB Apuron and the donor. In doing so he violated to the maximum extent possible the ANONYMITY required as a condition to the loan which became a gift. Even before the July 2013 creation of junglewatch by Tim Rohr AB Apuron revealed that the donation had come from the Carmelites. People thought he meant the local community and the support of Mother Dawn's community stopped.
I think you are still under the impression that AB Byrnes is as easily manipulated as AB Apuron was. The difference is AB Apuron had a scandalous past he wanted to keep secret so he submitted to the demands of his NCW catechist. People whispered about it for years but nobody was brave enough to go up against AB Apuron until he messed with Fr. Paul and Tim Rohr started junglewatch. I think your catechists have fooled you. That's why you keep saying the same things over and over just like Dr. Eusebio did.
Dear Anonymous at 1:44 pm,
DeleteNo, Tim Rohr did not post any document showing the statutes of limitation. He only said there is a statutes of limitation. It was only his word. Go back and ask him to post the document showing the statutes of limitation to be 5 years.
The anonymity was ALREADY violated in 2014 when the jungle published that it was the Carmelite nuns in Missouri who donated the 2 million dollars. It was the jungle who revealed the source of the donation; therefore Dr. Eusebio did not violate anything because the donor was already made known through the jungle in 2014 and again through Mother Dawn. Where is your documented proof that Archbishop Apuron came out and told who the donor in 2013?????? Archbishop Apuron rarely came out in the media.
No, Tim never posted any email from Apuron and the donor. He posted "quotes" of what he said was in the email. Again, that is only what he said. Go back and ask Tim to post the email of the donor, and then we shall see if the names match. The donor whom Archbishop emailed to was Mother Stela Maris.
Archbishop Byrnes was manipulated and lied to by Archbishop Hon. He only heard one side of the story.
Praying the good news is about Archbishop Anthony.
ReplyDeleteDevine intervention again...right Diana?
ReplyDeleteFinally, Rome listened to us.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:36 pm,
DeleteI would not be counting my chickens before it hatched.
And this goes for BOTH sides!
DeleteBOTH sides? LOL!
DeleteJust reviewed Dr Ric press conference. Why was this a press conference? His points easily can be taken apart. So what is behind all of this?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 12:04 pm,
DeleteDr. Eusebio provided the email correspondence between the donor and Archbishop Apuron. The seminary they were referring to was none other than RMS. Mother Dawn did not provide any email to substantiate her claim. Furthermore, she revealed the donor's identity 2 years ago, and is blaming Father Pius and Archbishop Apuron for revealing. I have the screenshot from the jungle as evidence that she was the one who identified the donor. The truth needs to be let out and heard.
Diana, I'm getting really scared about whats happening on the island. Where are our leaders when we need them?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:07 pm,
DeleteOur leader is arriving on Monday and the other is still going through a canonical trial.
Diana, what happens if our leader is found guilty? Is that the end of the Neocatechumenal Way on Guam? Do we need to relocate ourselves and our families? I'm really scared.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 2:29 pm?
DeleteWhy are you scared?
What if the Vatican finds AB Apuron innocent? Would CCOG and LFM be curious to know what evidence was uncovered during the canonical trial that led to a not guilty verdict?
DeleteNot going to happen.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:42 am,
DeleteYou are correct. CCOG and LFM would not care to listen to any evidence uncovered by the Vatican that led to an innocent verdict. That is never going to happen.